This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#341fudrickPosted 1/30/2013 9:23:40 PM
Faust_8 posted...
What? When you've said stuff like this, I just can't believe that. This is from the first page.

Because human can construct their own morality to say that murdering innocent children is alright, while a Universal Rule can say that murdering innocent children is wrong regardless of what a human thinks about it. How do you fail to see that?

No, sorry, your views have simply shifted as this topic went on. You were most definitely trying to discredit subjective morality when this topic began, and anyone who goes through the topic and reads your posts would think it's obvious.


Yeah, I was about to say... if you haven't been trying to "dismantle the concept [of] subjective morality" in this thread, C_Mat, exactly what have we been discussing this entire time?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#342C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 11:33:47 AM
Faust_8 posted...
...Where did I say you criticized atheism? "The system" means subjectively determining value on a individual or species level.


Fine, where did I criticize "the system"? I've been pointing out various facts about it, if you take them as flaws, that's your own problem with "the system." I would agree with you that they are flaws with "the system," but I haven't said anything positive or negative about it so far. And you said I criticized atheism on the previous page: "Thus to use that a criticism of "atheism" (again, a misunderstanding of atheism) is pointless."

I'm ignoring the other part of your post because that wasn't addressed to you in the first place. I'm also ignoring fudrick because he hasn't responded to the last (very long) post I typed to him.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#343fudrickPosted 1/31/2013 12:23:02 PM
C_Mat posted...
Yes you did.
fudrick: Yes, I'm insulting when you're practically insinuating that you're surprised atheists don't go around raping people.
fudrick: you started asking loaded questions with the (apparent) intent of painting all atheists as either hypocritical or amoral rape supporters


So you're saying that I didn't actually say that you claimed all atheists are rapists? Good, we agree then.

C_Mat posted...
Do I think atheists believe in objective moral standards? Yes.
Do atheists have any logical reasons (without opinion) to believe in objective moral standards? No.


You understand that "opinion" and "subjective" pretty much go hand in hand, right?

C_Mat posted...
Do atheists have an objective basis for moral standards? No.


Then how can you say that you believe all atheists believe in objective moral standards?

C_Mat posted...
Do atheists have a subjective basis for moral standards? Yes. There is no way you can 100% logically prove a subjective moral statement is "true," as it's based on subjective reasoning.


That's the point of subjective morality.

C_Mat posted...
None of you has displayed a way to "reason" your way into making a moral statement even though some of you claimed you could.


Have you asked us to do this? I don't recall. Either way, it's pretty simple in many cases.

C_Mat posted...
Is consensus useless? No, I've said it's helpful several times.
Does consensus define whether something is factual? No, only an idiot would think that.


Yeah, only an idiot would think that it's a fact that a dollar has value, right?

C_Mat posted...
I was incorrect when I said that it's a fact that a dollar has value, and the reason I didn't put much thought into answering that question the first time is that I didn't see (and still don't see) how a statement about monetary value is going to prove anything about human value. In the next post, I'll try to elaborate on this.

So are you saying that you only changed your response to that because you realized that your answer contradicted what you had been saying before that, or..? I don't really get what you're saying here.

C_Mat posted...
Are those clear enough for you?

Mostly, I suppose.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#344fudrickPosted 1/31/2013 12:23:02 PM
C_Mat posted...
I'm also ignoring fudrick because he hasn't responded to the last (very long) post I typed to him.


Oh, wow. Sorry, I typed up a response a couple days ago and thought I had posted it, but I guess I didn't. But you know, you still never responded to several questions I asked you.

C_Mat posted...
While there are many examples, the one I was thinking of when I read this was this exchange:

C_Mat: Atheism says nothing on the matter; however, my claim is that an atheist- who believes in (godless) evolution as an all-encompassing theory of human behavior and development- has no basis to say that raping a person is always objectively morally wrong.
fudrick: I've personally met atheists who did not accept evolution at all. Educate. Yourself. On. Atheism.

Your response refutes nothing I said (I clearly described an atheist who believes in evolution, not to all atheists who have ever lived), nor was there anything constructive about it, so it amounts to nothing more than petty heckling. This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously.


I must have misinterpreted you, there. I took your statement between the dashes to be somewhat of a "definition" of atheism, like if I were to say, "my claim is that a christian- who believes in Jesus as a savior and the son of god-"

C_Mat posted...
Nope, my purpose is to show that all atheists actually live as if there are objective moral values and duties, whether they admit that or not. I agree that there are some subjective moral rules, but not all of them are subjective


Which ones are subjective, and which ones are objective, then? How can there be some subjective rules if morality is objective?

C_Mat posted...
and whether or not subjective morality exists has not been my agenda. I'm establishing objective morality, not necessarily attacking subjective morality.


You've said many times that you think every human believes in objective moral standards. How can you not be trying to demonstrate that "subjective morality" doesn't exist?

C_Mat posted...
Then how come our conversations have gone like this so far:
C_Mat: Atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is wrong.
fudrick: You think atheists should be rape supporters!


If I remember correctly, you didn't say, "atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is wrong," every time; when I responded with that, I think you said something more like "atheism says there is no basis to say that rape is wrong," which is a much different assertion. I could be wrong on that, and I don't want to go read back through all the posts, but I feel like I remember that you made a few claims about what "atheism says" rather than what "atheism doesn't by itself say"

C_Mat posted...
Then when I point that out, you should agree, move on, instead of acting like that means I'm accusing atheists of being "amoral rape supporters."

I have told you that "atheism" posits no stance on anything but whether or not the individual holds a belief in god. I'm not sure why you have to keep mentioning "but atheism doesn't say rape is wrong!"
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#345C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 3:46:49 PM
fudrick, don't feel like you have to respond to everything or anything I typed. If there is one or two specific things you'd like to talk about, I'd rather that you mention them specifically in a new post than quote/respond quote/respond quote/respond like we're doing here. I prefer answering things in "essay" form than what I'm doing below.

fudrick posted...
So you're saying that I didn't actually say that you claimed all atheists are rapists? Good, we agree then.


Nope.

You understand that "opinion" and "subjective" pretty much go hand in hand, right?


Yeah...I don't see what that has to do with the text you quoted, though.

Then how can you say that you believe all atheists believe in objective moral standards?


Is it possible for someone to believe in something without a basis for their belief? If you can understand that concept, fudrick, you should be able to figure out what I've been saying in this topic.

That's the point of subjective morality..


Yep.

Have you asked us to do this? I don't recall. Either way, it's pretty simple in many cases.


Yes, kozlo tried earlier and I pointed out the fact that even the simple ideas (like that human flourishing is good) is a subjective belief that you can't prove. But go ahead and try to do it if you want.

Yeah, only an idiot would think that it's a fact that a dollar has value, right?

Another one of your famous non-sequiturs.

I didn't say it's stupid to believe a dollar has value.

I said it's stupid to do so on the basis of a consensus. Didn't you learn in school that "because everyone else is doing it" is a terrible justification for anything?

So are you saying that you only changed your response to that because you realized that your answer contradicted what you had been saying before that, or..? I don't really get what you're saying here.

Yeah, I changed my response when kozlo pointed out my inconsistency. I would have figured it out on my own if I had put more thought into the answer, but I figured at the time that it would be a pretty fruitless road to go down (and I still think I only ended up re-saying things I had already established, but perhaps going over things a second time helped get the message across).

Oh, wow. Sorry, I typed up a response a couple days ago and thought I had posted it, but I guess I didn't. But you know, you still never responded to several questions I asked you.

That's ok, if you re-post or redirect me to them, I'll go ahead and answer them now; but honestly I think the topic is winding down and if kozlo responds, perhaps I only really need to post one or two more times to get my conclusion. I'm willing to let everything else go if you are, I think the topic has made a lot of progress lately and I don't personally feel like going over stuff from 100+ posts ago.

I must have misinterpreted you, there. I took your statement between the dashes to be somewhat of a "definition" of atheism, like if I were to say, "my claim is that a christian- who believes in Jesus as a savior and the son of god-"

That is alright, but now maybe you understand why I didn't even bother to respond to that the first time.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#346C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 3:47:21 PM
Which ones are subjective, and which ones are objective, then? How can there be some subjective rules if morality is objective?

You kind of have to go by a case-by-case basis, as I'm not sure how to define it in simple terms. But I would say speed limits, for example, are pretty subjective (based on the opinion of whoever sets them). While I would say raping another person is wrong no matter what anyone's opinion of it is.

You've said many times that you think every human believes in objective moral standards. How can you not be trying to demonstrate that "subjective morality" doesn't exist?


I do believe there are objective moral standards that should guide the way people live their lives; they don't cover every single aspect of every person's life, though, so you have to use subjective morals to figure out how to "fill in the gaps."

Speed limits could be another example here; I don't believe there's a divine or objective law that says HWY 59 must be 70 MPH instead of 65 MPH. You use subjective standards to set that.

If I remember correctly, you didn't say, "atheism does not by itself say that raping someone is wrong," every time; when I responded with that, I think you said something more like "atheism says there is no basis to say that rape is wrong," which is a much different assertion. I could be wrong on that, and I don't want to go read back through all the posts, but I feel like I remember that you made a few claims about what "atheism says" rather than what "atheism doesn't by itself say"


I understand what you're saying, and I don't want to go backtracking through old posts just to make a point either, but I don't think my words would have confused most people.

When I say, "atheism says there is no basis to say that rape is wrong," I'm drawing a contrast between atheism and many other systems of thought. A similar statement when applied to a different religion would say, "Christianity says there is a basis to say that rape is wrong." If I confused you, I apologize, but I still think you went a bit overboard with your response, as I never said anything to the effect of meaning that atheists should therefore support rape. I pointed out that atheism says there is no totally objective basis to call rape wrong; of course, it also offers no basis to call rape right either, but I thought that was so obvious that I didn't need to point it out as well. Maybe I still should have.

I have told you that "atheism" posits no stance on anything but whether or not the individual holds a belief in god. I'm not sure why you have to keep mentioning "but atheism doesn't say rape is wrong!"

Because, again, I'm drawing a contrast between atheism and other worldviews.

Christianity says rape is wrong. Atheism doesn't say rape is wrong. If you're an atheist, you have to get your beliefs about rape from somewhere else.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#347Faust_8Posted 1/31/2013 4:35:17 PM
You still seem so utterly hung up on "you can't prove X" or whatever.

Can a man prove he loves his wife? Can he establish it as an undeniable fact to outside observers?

Does it MATTER that he can't do this? Does that mean that he does not love his wife?

Can I prove that human flourishing is good or that happiness is better than suffering? No. But why does it matter? Why does it have be a demonstrable fact? We all know that some things can't be proven...and hell, the scientific view is nothing is ever truly proven anyway.

It is totally irrelevant to how we value human life that we can't prove humans have value. It literally doesn't matter at all. And you can't prove value either, even with the Bible, because that is also an unproven source. I know you believe it, and you may be right, but you can't PROVE it. Does value just evaporate now?
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#348C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 5:33:23 PM
Faust_8 posted...
You still seem so utterly hung up on "you can't prove X" or whatever.

Can a man prove he loves his wife? Can he establish it as an undeniable fact to outside observers?

Does it MATTER that he can't do this? Does that mean that he does not love his wife?

Can I prove that human flourishing is good or that happiness is better than suffering? No. But why does it matter? Why does it have be a demonstrable fact? We all know that some things can't be proven...and hell, the scientific view is nothing is ever truly proven anyway.

It is totally irrelevant to how we value human life that we can't prove humans have value. It literally doesn't matter at all. And you can't prove value either, even with the Bible, because that is also an unproven source. I know you believe it, and you may be right, but you can't PROVE it. Does value just evaporate now?


Yes, there is very little we can prove, which is why (glad you brought up the scientific view) we go with whatever carries the best explanatory power. I will take this idea, and give you guys my conclusion to what we've talked about in this topic and respond to what you said here, but I'm gonna give kozlo one more day to respond before I do.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#349ThuggernautzPosted 2/1/2013 11:42:14 AM
C_Mat posted...

Is it possible for someone to believe in something without a basis for their belief?


Heh, the irony is strong in this one.
#350kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 11:54:45 AM
Go ahead and give your conclusion. I don't have a response that needs to get in before that.

Sorry I didn't respond before but I got caught up in the other topic, and the conversation carried on in the general direction I would have taken it anyway.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick